Ofgem to increase Winter Price Cap to cover cost of people not paying their bills.

[Deleted User]

@Chrysalis

It wasn’t that long ago that we had riots on the streets when the Government of the day introduced an individual Community Charge (the Poll Tax). You would be placing additional costs on the just getting by working couple in favour of pensioners. I would vote for that but I doubt that my grandchildren would.

Governments of all colours have kept energy costs separate from taxation. I cannot see that changing.

How many times are people going to spend the Non Dom Tax? If we tax them, they will just move away to somewhere that doesn’t tax non doms. The richest man in the UK is now domiciled in Monaco and has his Ineos empire headquartered in Switzerland. 

Social tariffs would again increase the cost of energy to other users. If people genuinely need help to pay their bills it should be via the State benefits route.

Finally, you cannot run a country by a series of expensive public consultations each time someone wants to change something. We appoint representatives to do this for us. If we don’t like it, we vote them out.

MattMattMattUK

[Deleted User] said:

@Chrysalis

It wasn’t that long ago that we had riots on the streets when the Government of the day introduced an individual Community Charge (the Poll Tax). You would be placing additional costs on the just getting by working couple in favour of pensioners. I would vote for that but I doubt that my grandchildren would.

Governments of all colours have kept energy costs separate from taxation. I cannot see that changing.

How many times are people going to spend the Non Dom Tax? If we tax them, they will just move away to somewhere that doesn’t tax non doms. The richest man in the UK is now domiciled in Monaco and has his Ineos empire headquartered in Switzerland. 

Social tariffs would again increase the cost of energy to other users. If people genuinely need help to pay their bills it should be via the State benefits route.

Finally, you cannot run a country by a series of expensive public consultations each time someone wants to change something. We appoint representatives to do this for us. If we don’t like it, we vote them out.

That is always the risk with tax rises. Norway pushed up it's wealth tax and so many millionaires and billionaires left that despite the rate being higher it is now expected to generate less revenue.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-record-rate-as-wealth-tax-rises-slightly

markin

[Deleted User] said:

@Chrysalis

It wasn’t that long ago that we had riots on the streets when the Government of the day introduced an individual Community Charge (the Poll Tax). You would be placing additional costs on the just getting by working couple in favour of pensioners. I would vote for that but I doubt that my grandchildren would.

Governments of all colours have kept energy costs separate from taxation. I cannot see that changing.

How many times are people going to spend the Non Dom Tax? If we tax them, they will just move away to somewhere that doesn’t tax non doms. The richest man in the UK is now domiciled in Monaco and has his Ineos empire headquartered in Switzerland. 

Social tariffs would again increase the cost of energy to other users. If people genuinely need help to pay their bills it should be via the State benefits route.

Finally, you cannot run a country by a series of expensive public consultations each time someone wants to change something. We appoint representatives to do this for us. If we don’t like it, we vote them out.

"Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE is a British billionaire, chemical engineer and businessman.

Ratcliffe is the chairman and chief executive officer of the INEOS chemicals group, which he founded in 1998.

The company is estimated to have had a turnover of $65 billion in 2021. Wikipedia

Born: October 18, 1952 (age 70 years), Failsworth, United Kingdom

Net worth: 23.6 billion USD (2023) Forbes

Spouse: Amanda Townson (m. 1985–1995), Alicia Ratcliffe"


He should be stripped of his title and banned from buying ManU,  Joking, Not Joking.

MattMattMattUK

markin said:

Dolor said:

@Chrysalis

It wasn’t that long ago that we had riots on the streets when the Government of the day introduced an individual Community Charge (the Poll Tax). You would be placing additional costs on the just getting by working couple in favour of pensioners. I would vote for that but I doubt that my grandchildren would.

Governments of all colours have kept energy costs separate from taxation. I cannot see that changing.

How many times are people going to spend the Non Dom Tax? If we tax them, they will just move away to somewhere that doesn’t tax non doms. The richest man in the UK is now domiciled in Monaco and has his Ineos empire headquartered in Switzerland. 

Social tariffs would again increase the cost of energy to other users. If people genuinely need help to pay their bills it should be via the State benefits route.

Finally, you cannot run a country by a series of expensive public consultations each time someone wants to change something. We appoint representatives to do this for us. If we don’t like it, we vote them out.

"Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE is a British billionaire, chemical engineer and businessman.

Ratcliffe is the chairman and chief executive officer of the INEOS chemicals group, which he founded in 1998.

The company is estimated to have had a turnover of $65 billion in 2021. Wikipedia

Born: October 18, 1952 (age 70 years), Failsworth, United Kingdom

Net worth: 23.6 billion USD (2023) Forbes

Spouse: Amanda Townson (m. 1985–1995), Alicia Ratcliffe"


He should be stripped of his title and banned from buying ManU,  Joking, Not Joking.

Should all people who leave the country be stripped of titles and be banned from buying things, or only people who are wealthy?

[Deleted User]

markin said:

[Deleted User] said:

@Chrysalis

It wasn’t that long ago that we had riots on the streets when the Government of the day introduced an individual Community Charge (the Poll Tax). You would be placing additional costs on the just getting by working couple in favour of pensioners. I would vote for that but I doubt that my grandchildren would.

Governments of all colours have kept energy costs separate from taxation. I cannot see that changing.

How many times are people going to spend the Non Dom Tax? If we tax them, they will just move away to somewhere that doesn’t tax non doms. The richest man in the UK is now domiciled in Monaco and has his Ineos empire headquartered in Switzerland. 

Social tariffs would again increase the cost of energy to other users. If people genuinely need help to pay their bills it should be via the State benefits route.

Finally, you cannot run a country by a series of expensive public consultations each time someone wants to change something. We appoint representatives to do this for us. If we don’t like it, we vote them out.

"Sir James Arthur Ratcliffe FIChemE is a British billionaire, chemical engineer and businessman.

Ratcliffe is the chairman and chief executive officer of the INEOS chemicals group, which he founded in 1998.

The company is estimated to have had a turnover of $65 billion in 2021. Wikipedia

Born: October 18, 1952 (age 70 years), Failsworth, United Kingdom

Net worth: 23.6 billion USD (2023) Forbes

Spouse: Amanda Townson (m. 1985–1995), Alicia Ratcliffe"


He should be stripped of his title and banned from buying ManU,  Joking, Not Joking.

You cannot be serious. As a society we have to get away from the politics of envy. People like Sir Jim have made their fortunes through personal skill and hard work. The reason that they have moved away is because the UK is now a high tax country. If we want these people to stay, then the Government knows what to do: lower the higher rates of taxes. It is more often the case, that the overall tax income rises.

It is also worth remembering that INEOS is now a multi-national company. In the UK alone,  it employs over 10000 people. 

agentcain

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

I just dont understand how there is people here on a money saving community with the founder recognising the problem, yet seemingly see no fundamental issue with this.

Martin freely admits that he only thinks about one side of the equation, the "consumer" and often only the one in the immediate case rather than the wider demographic of consumers. Solutions to claimed problems are very easy if you ignore the cons and only view the positives. Energy companies have spent much of the last two years losing money, because of that some went bust and others lost billions, the former is part of business, the latter is unsustainable. It was decided when SoLR was create that consumers as a whole would carry the burden of protecting credit balances rather than them falling on the individual consumer, personally I disagreed with that choice, but it was the choice made, that pushed up costs for all consumers, to the benefit of a few. The other options considered were that balances could be ringfenced, it was estimated that would push up prices for all consumers for the benefit of a few, or to put the entire amount onto general taxation, which would penalise taxpayers disproportionately to the benefit that they may gain (per taxpayer rather than per residence).

None of the solutions are perfect, they all have pros and cons depending one's position and none of them are free, they are not even zero sum, some of them are actually lose, lose. 

Chrysalis said:

At this point it feels like supplier X runs to Ofgem about some cost they need to recover or they threaten to leave the market, then we get a new announcement SC is going up again.

Then that feeling would be out of step with reality. Ofgem is stopping energy providers recovering energy costs in a timely manner, if they are blocked from recovering debts then they need to be allowed to account for that cost by increasing revenue elsewhere otherwise they will go bust. That is the balance between allowing full debt recovery and passing the cost onto other consumers, the alternative would be allowing debts to be recovered according to normal measures, disconnections, CCJs within a few months, aggressive enforcement etc. but it was decided that was not the route to be taken.

Chrysalis said:

The margins are also a red herring, many of the suppliers left are subsidiaries of larger companies, including Octopus.  How are Octopus managing to reduce standing charges?  Funded from the inefficiency buffer in the existing SC allowance?  What are other suppliers spending this buffer on?

How is being a subsidiary of a larger company relevant? If a subsidiary is loss making and has no prospect of returning to profit then it will be cut adrift and liquidated, they are a business, not a charity. At the moment they are not able to reduce standing charges and any appreciable amount, because they are still in a very narrow window due to being hemmed in by on the one side wholesale and network costs and on the other side the SVT and Ofgem blocking debt recovery. The very small amount that Octopus reduce the standing charge from is generally covered by the fact that their automated customer service system are very efficient, meaning that they can offer a higher level of customer service at a lower cost to the business, others are catching up, but very slowly. At the moment the standing charge is inadequate to account for the amount unpaid bills, both in terms of cost of credit whilst Ofgem delays debt recovery and for final costs of bad debts. 

1) why would ring fencing credits lead to increased prices for consumers?

2) being subsidiary of a larger company is relevant if you consider what these companies sell. In this scenario, the energy supplier is making a loss and the energy generator a profit. It makes sense not to liquidate the supplier, as the generator cannot sell to other markets. Energy is not something that can be sold digitally not can it be bottled and shipped. It has to be produced and consumed locally. Should the generator close down the supplier front, they will have to sell to other suppliers, at a lower price as the profit margin for those suppliers has to be maintained. If not, they can't sell and will have to close down their otherwise profitable generation business. If all private generators close down, power generation goes to the state, which is what many people have been asking since this whole fiasco started.

[Deleted User]

agentcain said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

I just dont understand how there is people here on a money saving community with the founder recognising the problem, yet seemingly see no fundamental issue with this.

Martin freely admits that he only thinks about one side of the equation, the "consumer" and often only the one in the immediate case rather than the wider demographic of consumers. Solutions to claimed problems are very easy if you ignore the cons and only view the positives. Energy companies have spent much of the last two years losing money, because of that some went bust and others lost billions, the former is part of business, the latter is unsustainable. It was decided when SoLR was create that consumers as a whole would carry the burden of protecting credit balances rather than them falling on the individual consumer, personally I disagreed with that choice, but it was the choice made, that pushed up costs for all consumers, to the benefit of a few. The other options considered were that balances could be ringfenced, it was estimated that would push up prices for all consumers for the benefit of a few, or to put the entire amount onto general taxation, which would penalise taxpayers disproportionately to the benefit that they may gain (per taxpayer rather than per residence).

None of the solutions are perfect, they all have pros and cons depending one's position and none of them are free, they are not even zero sum, some of them are actually lose, lose. 

Chrysalis said:

At this point it feels like supplier X runs to Ofgem about some cost they need to recover or they threaten to leave the market, then we get a new announcement SC is going up again.

Then that feeling would be out of step with reality. Ofgem is stopping energy providers recovering energy costs in a timely manner, if they are blocked from recovering debts then they need to be allowed to account for that cost by increasing revenue elsewhere otherwise they will go bust. That is the balance between allowing full debt recovery and passing the cost onto other consumers, the alternative would be allowing debts to be recovered according to normal measures, disconnections, CCJs within a few months, aggressive enforcement etc. but it was decided that was not the route to be taken.

Chrysalis said:

The margins are also a red herring, many of the suppliers left are subsidiaries of larger companies, including Octopus.  How are Octopus managing to reduce standing charges?  Funded from the inefficiency buffer in the existing SC allowance?  What are other suppliers spending this buffer on?

How is being a subsidiary of a larger company relevant? If a subsidiary is loss making and has no prospect of returning to profit then it will be cut adrift and liquidated, they are a business, not a charity. At the moment they are not able to reduce standing charges and any appreciable amount, because they are still in a very narrow window due to being hemmed in by on the one side wholesale and network costs and on the other side the SVT and Ofgem blocking debt recovery. The very small amount that Octopus reduce the standing charge from is generally covered by the fact that their automated customer service system are very efficient, meaning that they can offer a higher level of customer service at a lower cost to the business, others are catching up, but very slowly. At the moment the standing charge is inadequate to account for the amount unpaid bills, both in terms of cost of credit whilst Ofgem delays debt recovery and for final costs of bad debts. 

1) why would ring fencing credits lead to increased prices for consumers?

2) being subsidiary of a larger company is relevant if you consider what these companies sell. In this scenario, the energy supplier is making a loss and the energy generator a profit. It makes sense not to liquidate the supplier, as the generator cannot sell to other markets. Energy is not something that can be sold digitally not can it be bottled and shipped. It has to be produced and consumed locally. Should the generator close down the supplier front, they will have to sell to other suppliers, at a lower price as the profit margin for those suppliers has to be maintained. If not, they can't sell and will have to close down their otherwise profitable generation business. If all private generators close down, power generation goes to the state, which is what many people have been asking since this whole fiasco started.

This is what Octopus said in its submission last year to Parliament:

1.       The major cause of supplier failure has been inadequate hedging and this risk needs to be addressed head on. Instead, Ofgem is tackling failures slowly and obliquely via ringfencing measures. These are neither necessary nor sufficient, and carry unfortunate side effects including higher energy bills and higher profits for suppliers.

2.       The cost of honouring the credit balances of the customers of failed suppliers has been exaggerated by witnesses to the Committee. In fact it is expected to account for less than 10%of the total Supplier of Last Resort (SOLR) costs. The focus on this area of costs risks creating a distraction from addressing the underlying causes of failure

3.       Ofgem’s proposal to ring fence gross credit balances will have little if any effect in reducing the risk of supplier failure. As a measure to protect customer balances it is expensive. We estimate it will cost customers up to £15 every year. This annual cost is more than the £7.40 one off cost to customers for mutualising credit balances in this very unusual year. It will also damage competition and innovation and lead to higher supplier profits

4.       Lower cost alternatives to ringfencing are available and used in other industries such as travel and banking to protect customer balances. We are disturbed that Ofgem has not assessed the impact of these or compared them with the proposal for ringfencing

Ofgem would appear to have accepted this argument.

MattMattMattUK

agentcain said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

I just dont understand how there is people here on a money saving community with the founder recognising the problem, yet seemingly see no fundamental issue with this.

Martin freely admits that he only thinks about one side of the equation, the "consumer" and often only the one in the immediate case rather than the wider demographic of consumers. Solutions to claimed problems are very easy if you ignore the cons and only view the positives. Energy companies have spent much of the last two years losing money, because of that some went bust and others lost billions, the former is part of business, the latter is unsustainable. It was decided when SoLR was create that consumers as a whole would carry the burden of protecting credit balances rather than them falling on the individual consumer, personally I disagreed with that choice, but it was the choice made, that pushed up costs for all consumers, to the benefit of a few. The other options considered were that balances could be ringfenced, it was estimated that would push up prices for all consumers for the benefit of a few, or to put the entire amount onto general taxation, which would penalise taxpayers disproportionately to the benefit that they may gain (per taxpayer rather than per residence).

None of the solutions are perfect, they all have pros and cons depending one's position and none of them are free, they are not even zero sum, some of them are actually lose, lose. 

Chrysalis said:

At this point it feels like supplier X runs to Ofgem about some cost they need to recover or they threaten to leave the market, then we get a new announcement SC is going up again.

Then that feeling would be out of step with reality. Ofgem is stopping energy providers recovering energy costs in a timely manner, if they are blocked from recovering debts then they need to be allowed to account for that cost by increasing revenue elsewhere otherwise they will go bust. That is the balance between allowing full debt recovery and passing the cost onto other consumers, the alternative would be allowing debts to be recovered according to normal measures, disconnections, CCJs within a few months, aggressive enforcement etc. but it was decided that was not the route to be taken.

Chrysalis said:

The margins are also a red herring, many of the suppliers left are subsidiaries of larger companies, including Octopus.  How are Octopus managing to reduce standing charges?  Funded from the inefficiency buffer in the existing SC allowance?  What are other suppliers spending this buffer on?

How is being a subsidiary of a larger company relevant? If a subsidiary is loss making and has no prospect of returning to profit then it will be cut adrift and liquidated, they are a business, not a charity. At the moment they are not able to reduce standing charges and any appreciable amount, because they are still in a very narrow window due to being hemmed in by on the one side wholesale and network costs and on the other side the SVT and Ofgem blocking debt recovery. The very small amount that Octopus reduce the standing charge from is generally covered by the fact that their automated customer service system are very efficient, meaning that they can offer a higher level of customer service at a lower cost to the business, others are catching up, but very slowly. At the moment the standing charge is inadequate to account for the amount unpaid bills, both in terms of cost of credit whilst Ofgem delays debt recovery and for final costs of bad debts. 

1) why would ring fencing credits lead to increased prices for consumers?

Dolor has answered 1 very well above, but essentially capital costs money, ringfencing means that cashflow would have to be funded by capital/borrowing which has a cost, that cost would be passed onto consumers.

agentcain said:

2) being subsidiary of a larger company is relevant if you consider what these companies sell. In this scenario, the energy supplier is making a loss and the energy generator a profit. It makes sense not to liquidate the supplier, as the generator cannot sell to other markets. Energy is not something that can be sold digitally not can it be bottled and shipped. It has to be produced and consumed locally. Should the generator close down the supplier front, they will have to sell to other suppliers, at a lower price as the profit margin for those suppliers has to be maintained. If not, they can't sell and will have to close down their otherwise profitable generation business.

It still is not though, UK (and European) competition law specifically prohibits cross subsidy between generators and suppliers. Your scenario also assumes that there is no outlet for the product (energy) if Centrica for example liquidated British Gas Retail, but that is not true, the energy would be sold on the wholesale markets. If the generators could not maintain the price they desired they would constrain supply, that would push up prices, that is the fundamentals markets work. Centrica do not only sell to BGR, EDF the generator do not only sell to EDF Energy, Octopus have no generation capacity at all and the vast majority of generators have no retail operation. 

agentcain said:
If all private generators close down, power generation goes to the state, which is what many people have been asking since this whole fiasco started.

People have been asking for that because they do not understand the system, there are suppliers, they sell us the energy, their margin is capped at a max of 1.9/2.0%, they have lost billions over the last few years. There are generators, they generate by different means, renewable has made a lot of profit over the last few years, nuclear similarly, gas fired power stations made far less initially, then slightly more now. Then there are the energy extraction companies, those who extract the hydrocarbons from the ground, they extract internationally and sell on international markets, those are the ones that make large profits, such as Shell, Centrica etc. and they make 95% of their profits from operations outside the UK. Nationalising energy is not a solution. The only viable solution if we want security of supply and a reasonable price is a large scale building plan of nuclear rectors, built, owned and operated by the government and funded from borrowing and increased taxation. 

agentcain

MattMattMattUK said:

agentcain said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Chrysalis said:

I just dont understand how there is people here on a money saving community with the founder recognising the problem, yet seemingly see no fundamental issue with this.

Martin freely admits that he only thinks about one side of the equation, the "consumer" and often only the one in the immediate case rather than the wider demographic of consumers. Solutions to claimed problems are very easy if you ignore the cons and only view the positives. Energy companies have spent much of the last two years losing money, because of that some went bust and others lost billions, the former is part of business, the latter is unsustainable. It was decided when SoLR was create that consumers as a whole would carry the burden of protecting credit balances rather than them falling on the individual consumer, personally I disagreed with that choice, but it was the choice made, that pushed up costs for all consumers, to the benefit of a few. The other options considered were that balances could be ringfenced, it was estimated that would push up prices for all consumers for the benefit of a few, or to put the entire amount onto general taxation, which would penalise taxpayers disproportionately to the benefit that they may gain (per taxpayer rather than per residence).

None of the solutions are perfect, they all have pros and cons depending one's position and none of them are free, they are not even zero sum, some of them are actually lose, lose. 

Chrysalis said:

At this point it feels like supplier X runs to Ofgem about some cost they need to recover or they threaten to leave the market, then we get a new announcement SC is going up again.

Then that feeling would be out of step with reality. Ofgem is stopping energy providers recovering energy costs in a timely manner, if they are blocked from recovering debts then they need to be allowed to account for that cost by increasing revenue elsewhere otherwise they will go bust. That is the balance between allowing full debt recovery and passing the cost onto other consumers, the alternative would be allowing debts to be recovered according to normal measures, disconnections, CCJs within a few months, aggressive enforcement etc. but it was decided that was not the route to be taken.

Chrysalis said:

The margins are also a red herring, many of the suppliers left are subsidiaries of larger companies, including Octopus.  How are Octopus managing to reduce standing charges?  Funded from the inefficiency buffer in the existing SC allowance?  What are other suppliers spending this buffer on?

How is being a subsidiary of a larger company relevant? If a subsidiary is loss making and has no prospect of returning to profit then it will be cut adrift and liquidated, they are a business, not a charity. At the moment they are not able to reduce standing charges and any appreciable amount, because they are still in a very narrow window due to being hemmed in by on the one side wholesale and network costs and on the other side the SVT and Ofgem blocking debt recovery. The very small amount that Octopus reduce the standing charge from is generally covered by the fact that their automated customer service system are very efficient, meaning that they can offer a higher level of customer service at a lower cost to the business, others are catching up, but very slowly. At the moment the standing charge is inadequate to account for the amount unpaid bills, both in terms of cost of credit whilst Ofgem delays debt recovery and for final costs of bad debts. 

1) why would ring fencing credits lead to increased prices for consumers?

Dolor has answered 1 very well above, but essentially capital costs money, ringfencing means that cashflow would have to be funded by capital/borrowing which has a cost, that cost would be passed onto consumers.

agentcain said:

2) being subsidiary of a larger company is relevant if you consider what these companies sell. In this scenario, the energy supplier is making a loss and the energy generator a profit. It makes sense not to liquidate the supplier, as the generator cannot sell to other markets. Energy is not something that can be sold digitally not can it be bottled and shipped. It has to be produced and consumed locally. Should the generator close down the supplier front, they will have to sell to other suppliers, at a lower price as the profit margin for those suppliers has to be maintained. If not, they can't sell and will have to close down their otherwise profitable generation business.

It still is not though, UK (and European) competition law specifically prohibits cross subsidy between generators and suppliers. Your scenario also assumes that there is no outlet for the product (energy) if Centrica for example liquidated British Gas Retail, but that is not true, the energy would be sold on the wholesale markets. If the generators could not maintain the price they desired they would constrain supply, that would push up prices, that is the fundamentals markets work. Centrica do not only sell to BGR, EDF the generator do not only sell to EDF Energy, Octopus have no generation capacity at all and the vast majority of generators have no retail operation. 

agentcain said:
If all private generators close down, power generation goes to the state, which is what many people have been asking since this whole fiasco started.

People have been asking for that because they do not understand the system, there are suppliers, they sell us the energy, their margin is capped at a max of 1.9/2.0%, they have lost billions over the last few years. There are generators, they generate by different means, renewable has made a lot of profit over the last few years, nuclear similarly, gas fired power stations made far less initially, then slightly more now. Then there are the energy extraction companies, those who extract the hydrocarbons from the ground, they extract internationally and sell on international markets, those are the ones that make large profits, such as Shell, Centrica etc. and they make 95% of their profits from operations outside the UK. Nationalising energy is not a solution. The only viable solution if we want security of supply and a reasonable price is a large scale building plan of nuclear rectors, built, owned and operated by the government and funded from borrowing and increased taxation. 

1) so it's not that it actively costs more money, it's that not ringfencing allows for lowering costs at the expense of some dodgy business practices that taxpayers are now forced to subsidize. So it's not really cheaper now is it? In effect, you're comparing it against that was of lower cost than it should be. It's like saying that seat belts increase costs due to the extra materials without considering the increased costs on healthcare for those who that into an accident without one. We are not supposed to be making these predictions though, we have a regulator for that!

2) UK is not part of the EU since brexit happened, so we might as well put this freedom of changing laws to the long list of brexit benefits, if we ever saw one.
Regardless of the laws though, please explain to me how UK generators totaling 75GW of generating capacity can sell it to wholesale markets with interconnectors allowing at best 8GW currently.

If they force the market by blackmailing, i.e. constraining supply, I say let them have it. State steps in, makes their own generation for the people. In the meantime, it takes back all fuel extraction licences that belong to the same companies; can't have the fuel if you're not giving some of that to the people.

The energy extractors you mention still have to physically move stuff around, be it LNG, coal, diesel, nuclear, whatever. In case generators force fuel away from domestic consumption, the UK is in perfectly good moral and legal standpoint to make any amendments in law to force them to reconsider.

There are solutions, just not those that greedy capital venturers like to admit. Instead, they like to feed the current failing capitalistic scheme under the protection of a useless regulator.

Chrysalis

[Deleted User] said:

@Chrysalis

It wasn’t that long ago that we had riots on the streets when the Government of the day introduced an individual Community Charge (the Poll Tax). You would be placing additional costs on the just getting by working couple in favour of pensioners. I would vote for that but I doubt that my grandchildren would.

Governments of all colours have kept energy costs separate from taxation. I cannot see that changing.

How many times are people going to spend the Non Dom Tax? If we tax them, they will just move away to somewhere that doesn’t tax non doms. The richest man in the UK is now domiciled in Monaco and has his Ineos empire headquartered in Switzerland. 

Social tariffs would again increase the cost of energy to other users. If people genuinely need help to pay their bills it should be via the State benefits route.

Finally, you cannot run a country by a series of expensive public consultations each time someone wants to change something. We appoint representatives to do this for us. If we don’t like it, we vote them out.

For what its worth I think the poll tax was fairer than the current council tax.

But most adults live with at least one other adult and they think about themselves first.

I am not saying it was perfect, but it was more reasonable.

I do think we need to tax wealth, there is absolutely no question of that, interestingly I know a few comfortably tory voters who agree, shift taxation from income to assets.

There is nothing right that a multi millionaire can pay less tax simply because we too scared to tax wealth properly.  Regardless these things can be funded via fairer means (such as taxing the able instead of charging the poor more SC), its as always political willpower.

Also you mentioned diplomacy, but then are against HoP votes for approving decisions (by those representatives you mention).  If you think been able to vote in a undemocratic FPTP every 5 years is a means to reject it then I disagree.  We didnt vote in the current Ofgem crew.

But I appreciate you took the effort to read it and gave me some return points.

I do feel a big issue here is the fear of change, there seems to be a lot of regulars here who are acting as if not much is wrong with the energy sector, and as such are against radical changes.

Its the old saying, to fix a problem you first have to recognise there is a problem, there is some serious denial going on.

We could sweep it under the carpet and pretend only minor tweaks are needed, but as is happening now in the housing sector, that will only hurt long term as it destroys consumer spending power.